The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1887-09-06
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian ISL
ands--July Term, 1887.
KA1AEokEkOI vs.. KAHE1E Er Al.


BEFORE JUDD, c. J., M'cULLY J., PRESTON ]. AND
BIcKERIoN ].
Opinion Of the Court per McC ULLYJ.
This was an action of eiectment to
which the defendant filed a plea in
bar.
Plaintiffs claim is based upon. Q)
a certain land commission award, and
~ by adverse possession and right Of
inheritance.
The defendants plea in bar is as
follows:
And now come the defendants in
the above entitled action, by Cecil
Brown, their Attorney, and say that
the above named plaintiff ought not
to have or maintain his aforesaid act
ion, for that heretofore, to wit, at the
October term of the Supreme Court,
held in the year 1882, the said plain
tiff, in a certain action against D. Ka-
hanu, a Judgment was rendered in
favor of said d. Kahanu, and to which
Judgment, reference is hereby speci-
ally made, and made a part of this
plea
And defendants further shew that
plaintiff should not have or maintain
his aforesaid action, for that hereto
fore, to wit, in a certain action had in
the Supreme Court in equity. in an
action between plaintiff and defend
ants, Kahele ct al, judgment was rem
dered in favor of the defendants. Ka-
hele ct al, on the Sth dayOf January.
1884, and to which Judgment, refer
ence is hereby specially made and
made part of this plea. All Of which
matters complained of, in plaintiffs
complaint herein, being for the same
cause of action as in said actions de
cided
Wherefore, defendants pray for
judgment, if said plaintiff ought to
have or maintain his said action.
The general reference to the records
as made in the plea, is faulty. The
plea should have set forth specifically
what is relied on in each case, but the
Court, with the records before them
will endeavor to apply what seems to
be applicable.
The first case referred to went be-
fore the Court in Baneo upon excep-
tions. Upon the exception of the
rulings of the Judge at nisi prices
that the original Royal Patent pro
duced, conveys land described in
Award 6245, No. 1, to 'Kalaeokekoi
for Kalakini,' the owner Of the land in
question" the Court held that the
Royal Patent being to Kalaeokekoi
for Kalakini and the plaintiff claim
ing through KalaeOkekoi and not
through Kalakini, cannot recover
against the heirs or assigns Of Kala-
kini This adjudication directly bars
the plaintiff in the case at bar. whose
claim is Il Jugh Kalaeokekoi. The
Court havip also held that the eaui
ties as bet N an award and a ROyal
Patent could not be determined ex-
cept in a court of law, Counsel for
the plaintiff contend here that this
matter cannot be considered res adju-
dieata, because the action Of eiectment
vs. d. Kahanu was to recover a single
piece out of several pieces awarded
and patented, which piece is not
claimed IN this action, which is
brought for others in that patent. If
there were not an identity of subject
matter, the rule of res ddjudioIta would
not apply But the circumstance thet
the premises granted by the patent
comprised several detached lots, can
not make it several titles or several
things. A single grant of sundry
pieces has no different character from
the grant of piece included In one
circumference of survey lines. The
Court also held that Ksaka, through
and succeeding whom, the plaintiff
CLAIMS a preseriptiYe title, having a
prescripti7e occupancy, had failed to
show the beginning Of definite, adj
Y5rse and hostile claim to any part Of
the premises in question, and this ad-
I Indicates in bar of again presenting a
claim by the same sO-called adverse
( possession.
The second case relied on in the plea
+ in bar, adjudicated that the award
to Kalaeokekoi for Kalakin;. was
merged in the Royal Patent to Kala
KIM and her heirs, that the patent in
cluded the land in the award and was
valid patent This bars the action
now based on the award.
The plea in bar is hereby sustained.
M. Thompson attorney for print
Cecil Brown attorney for defendants.
Honolulu, August 26, 1887.